I need some help guys...(Only those that are Biblically sound)

[BigChrisfilm]

I need some Bible believing Christians that believe in evangelising the lost. I am asking you to go with me into the lions den. I can't do it alone, and I would like let the light shine so bright in this forum that all darkness will scatter. I want to shut it down, and I want those that will to be saved. PLEASE, if you are not afraid to be laughed at, scoffed, cursed, and whatnot, please come with me. Either reply here, and I will give you the link, or PM me, and I will give it to you. I don't want anyone that is shaky in their faith, because this place will probably eat you alive. NOW, that I have scared you all, lol, please help me complete this mission.

[Erinwilcox]

What/where is involved?

[BigChrisfilm]

What/where is involved?
It is an athiest forum, that takes quotes from Christian web sites like this one, and makes us look like fools. Basically, they take the wackiest stuff they can find, and what I need is for some people to help me witness to them, correct there wrong understanding, and basically, do some good ole fashing appolegetics.

[arunma]

It is an athiest forum, that takes quotes from Christian web sites like this one, and makes us look like fools. Basically, they take the wackiest stuff they can find, and what I need is for some people to help me witness to them, correct there wrong understanding, and basically, do some good ole fashing appolegetics.

Are you, by any chance, talking about a website called "Fundies Say the Darndest Things?" Here's the link:

www.fstdt.com (http://www.fstdt.com)

It's somewhat humorous, once you look at it for awhile. Try searching for specific posters. If you look me up, you should find three posts. They've got you too, Chris. Most of the stuff they posted on you doesn't even sound that bad when taken out of context.

Anyway, if you're trying to debate on an atheist website, here's a certain passage of Scripture to consider:
Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. (St. Matthew 7:6)
Many of these people can be reached by the love of Christ mediated through the church, but almost none of them will be won over by apologetic debates. If you want to do it, then I certainly won't stand in your way. But you may be wasting your time here.

[BigChrisfilm]

Are you, by any chance, talking about a website called "Fundies Say the Darndest Things?" Here's the link:

www.fstdt.com (http://www.fstdt.com)

It's somewhat humorous, once you look at it for awhile. Try searching for specific posters. If you look me up, you should find three posts. They've got you too, Chris. Most of the stuff they posted on you doesn't even sound that bad when taken out of context.

Anyway, if you're trying to debate on an atheist website, here's a certain passage of Scripture to consider:
Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. (St. Matthew 7:6)
Many of these people can be reached by the love of Christ mediated through the church, but almost none of them will be won over by apologetic debates. If you want to do it, then I certainly won't stand in your way. But you may be wasting your time here.
how do you do searches?

[arunma]

how do you do searches?

Can I assume that this is the site you were talking about?

Anyway, there is a link on the front page called "Search Quotes and Comments." But I did the search for you. Here's what turns up under "BigChrisfilm:"

http://www.fstdt.com/search.asp?quote=&fundie=BigChrisfilm&fundiesort=&board=&boardsort=&nomination=&nominationsort=&ratingfilter=greater&rating=&ratingsort=&numberofvotesfilter=greater&numberofvotes=&numberofvotessort=&datefilter=greater&monthsearch=*&daysearch=*&yearsearch=*&datesort=&category=*&searchtype=quotes

[BigChrisfilm]

This is my favorite quote of all time.

"GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL."

[IisJustMe]

Why open yourself up to the abuse? It may appeal to your natural aggressiveness, but in the end accomplishes nothing. If you want to "wade into the trenches" so to speak, do it where it will actually achieve positive results.

This is not real life, Chris. This is cyberspace. It is comic relief for most people, even the most serious of us who frequent this site. If you want to accomplish something for God, go out into the world, the one you can see from your computer desk, and preach Christ.

I was in prison. Compulsive gambling addiction, leading to forgery. My life was a wreck, because I neither had surrendered to Christ in Whom I'd trusted, nor understood the need to live in my ongoing sanctification. While in prison, God got hold of me. He showed me the path he had laid out for me. Then he prepared me for the work. I finished my BA in social work at a Christian college, and now I'm working on my Masters in counseling. I've become nationally and state certified in Kansas and Missouri as a substance abuse and addictions counselor, and I now run an inner city Christian detox and treatment facility. I preach Christ daily, I work fertile soil, and I see results. Sometimes those results are short term, which can be disappointing, but at least a seed was planted.

On that web site you want to evangelize, they will just use your posts as more grist for the mill, and you will get no personal satisfaction other than the occasional well-aimed "zinger" which won't last either. If you want to evangelize, look for fertile soil upon which to cast your seed. Let God do the watering and fertilizing, and sit back and watch for a miracle. All I see for you on that web site is frustration and anger, neither of which is conducive to your own spiritual health.

Be blessed, brother, and praise God for the desire to deliver His word to those who need it. But find a mission field that actually has a desire to be evangelized, rather than one that will kill your spirit.

[BereanTodd]

Are you, by any chance, talking about a website called "Fundies Say the Darndest Things?" Here's the link:

www.fstdt.com (http://www.fstdt.com)

It's somewhat humorous, once you look at it for awhile. Try searching for specific posters. If you look me up, you should find three posts. They've got you too, Chris. Most of the stuff they posted on you doesn't even sound that bad when taken out of context.


Anyway, if you're trying to debate on an atheist website, here's a certain passage of Scripture to consider:Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. (St. Matthew 7:6)
Many of these people can be reached by the love of Christ mediated through the church, but almost none of them will be won over by apologetic debates. If you want to do it, then I certainly won't stand in your way. But you may be wasting your time here.

I agree with you 110%. I love apologetics, I am very well versed in it and I utilize it a great deal. But there are times and places to use it, and there are others where it is futile. That website, in my own personal estimation, would be nothing more than casting pearls before the dogs.

[MikeMcK]

I love FSTDT.

Frankly, I'm a little hurt that they've never quoted me.

Seriously, though, I appreciate your zeal but I don't know if that's the best solution.

One of the things that God showed me a long time ago (and it took me a long time to listen to Him) is that it's one thing to present the Gospel and let the Holy Spirit use the law to bring about conviction, but it's quite another thing to offer the Gospel up to people who only want to make sport of it.

In the end, that cheapens God's word. That's what Jesus meant when He told us not to cast pearls before swine for them to trample something valuable underfoot.

Besides, you've got to admit that some of the quotes they've got are pretty funny/dumb.

[TwinCrier]

I consider it a badge of honor when they quote me there. Do they have a forum as well?

[arunma]

I consider it a badge of honor when they quote me there. Do they have a forum as well?

Sort of. You can make comments on each fundie quote that they post.

[Tenken07]

I consider it a badge of honor when they quote me there. Do they have a forum as well?


maybe youll get lucky and they'll quote this one on ya. xD

[BigChrisfilm]

They actually have a forum, which is where I do my posting.

[RichardT]

lol, look me up on there, I just can't stop laughing at some of the stuff I said a year ago!

Btw, I do post comments there whenever they laugh at things that aren't stupid/funny

[VCViking]

Unfortunately, I'm not on there.:(

[VCViking]

Are you, by any chance, talking about a website called "Fundies Say the Darndest Things?" Here's the link:

www.fstdt.com (http://www.fstdt.com)

It's somewhat humorous, once you look at it for awhile. Try searching for specific posters. If you look me up, you should find three posts. They've got you too, Chris. Most of the stuff they posted on you doesn't even sound that bad when taken out of context.


Anyway, if you're trying to debate on an atheist website, here's a certain passage of Scripture to consider:Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. (St. Matthew 7:6)
Many of these people can be reached by the love of Christ mediated through the church, but almost none of them will be won over by apologetic debates. If you want to do it, then I certainly won't stand in your way. But you may be wasting your time here.


Agreed.

[arunma]

Unfortunately, I'm not on there.:(

Here's the advice TwinCrier gave me. Head over to GA, start a new thread with a few paragraphs on why "y'all are goin' ta hell!!!!" They'll have you on fstdt pretty quickly.

[JacobHall86]

Athiests arent making Christians look stupid, Christians are making Christians look stupid.

[arunma]

Athiests arent making Christians look stupid, Christians are making Christians look stupid.

You know, it's really sad that I already gave you reps for another post today, because this one really deserves it.

[Project 86]

Athiests arent making Christians look stupid, Christians are making Christians look stupid.

Are you implying if you're listed on the web site you are making Christians look stupid by being stupid? The reason I ask is because you are also quoted on that web site. ;)

[RichardT]

Are you implying if you're listed on the web site you are making Christians look stupid by being stupid? The reason I ask is because you are also quoted on that web site. ;)

Hahaha pwned

[arunma]

Are you implying if you're listed on the web site you are making Christians look stupid by being stupid? The reason I ask is because you are also quoted on that web site. ;)

Heh, so am I, and I'm not even a fundie. But since those guys label anyone who believes that all non-Christian religions are false (i.e. me) a fundamentalist, I guess they can't tell the difference. The funny part is that if you compare Chris' posts on fstdt to mine, his sound comparatively nicer.

Alas, Jacob is absolutely right, regardless of what is posted on fstdt. Even on CF, I've heard some ridiculous things said. Heck, on this very forum, I got a hard time when I once started a thread to refute the idea that the Sun orbits the earth. Apparently some people believe that "science is of the day-vil." I think any sensible person will agree that when you start defending geocentrism on religious grounds, you make Christianity look like a religion for idiots. And that can have disasterous consequences for the souls of the unsaved. I think that in general, Christians need to stop espousing anti-intellectualism if we are to be taken seriously.

[JacobHall86]

Are you implying if you're listed on the web site you are making Christians look stupid by being stupid? The reason I ask is because you are also quoted on that web site. ;)

No doubt am I quoted on it, I dont really listen to my critics, but They are only using the ammunition we give them.

[Project 86]

No doubt am I quoted on it, I dont really listen to my critics, but They are only using the ammunition we give them.

Don't forget 3 important points.

1. Christians will always be hypocrites because we are all still sinners.

2. Not all "Christians" are really Christians.

3. Christianity and Christians will always be foolish to nonchristians.

1 Corinthians 1:18-27 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;

[JacobHall86]

I agree totally, but I also think that some Christians are also very very very dumb in some aspects and they make all Christians look dumb because of it. They cant just make something up and say Christians have said it, we have to say it first.

[Project 86]

I agree totally, but I also think that some Christians are also very very very dumb in some aspects and they make all Christians look dumb because of it. They cant just make something up and say Christians have said it, we have to say it first.

Well I don't know if I totally agree with the making stuff up. I have seen Christians get misquoted more then once. I agree we can sometimes say dumb things. Sometimes we are just passing on bad information we have heard from others. We should lovingly correct our Christian brother or sister which typically doesn't happen at places like here and it just turns into a battle thread to see who can win. Also some Christians think I say stupid things when I talk about the earth only being about 7,000 years old. I would have to disagree though since I have studied the topic from a Biblical and scientific perspective a great deal. I'm just glad we won't have to worry about this stuff in Heaven.

[RichardT]

Heh, so am I, and I'm not even a fundie. But since those guys label anyone who believes that all non-Christian religions are false (i.e. me) a fundamentalist, I guess they can't tell the difference. The funny part is that if you compare Chris' posts on fstdt to mine, his sound comparatively nicer.

Alas, Jacob is absolutely right, regardless of what is posted on fstdt. Even on CF, I've heard some ridiculous things said. Heck, on this very forum, I got a hard time when I once started a thread to refute the idea that the Sun orbits the earth. Apparently some people believe that "science is of the day-vil." I think any sensible person will agree that when you start defending geocentrism on religious grounds, you make Christianity look like a religion for idiots. And that can have disasterous consequences for the souls of the unsaved. I think that in general, Christians need to stop espousing anti-intellectualism if we are to be taken seriously.

I never said "science is of the day-vil"

And I never said I knew everything about science, I can still learn, but from what I know now, Geocentrism is very possible, taking redshift findings into consideration.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0807tj.asp

[JacobHall86]

No, its not possible.

[RichardT]

No, its not possible.

Explain why.

[JacobHall86]

Explain why.

Because the Earth Revolves around the Sun, not the other way around.

[RichardT]

Because the Earth Revolves around the Sun, not the other way around.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no79/occam.html

I guess you're trying to argue that Occam's Razor doesn't allow it?

[JacobHall86]

When you learn to actually debate let me know, because you have no clue what you are talking about.

I am not saying that We can reason that the earth revolves around the sun because its the simpliest answer. By no means, infact you have demonstrated that the simplist answer is that everything revolves around the earth. Given the Mass of each planet and the mass of the Sun, it is only logical to understand that the Gravitational pull of the sun is far greater than the earths and that the earth revolves around the sun.

[RichardT]

Totally unrelated. I posted evidence that the earth could possibly be at the center of the universe, what exacly are you trying to argue, that there is no center to the universe?

[JacobHall86]

No, the Sun is the center of the universe.

[RichardT]

No, the Sun is the center of the universe.

Lol...

[JacobHall86]

Lol...

Laugh at your own ignorance, the sun is the center of the universe whether you want to accept it or not.

[RichardT]

Laugh at your own ignorance, the sun is the center of the universe whether you want to accept it or not.

LOL.

[RichardT]

I am not saying that We can reason that the earth revolves around the sun because its the simpliest answer. By no means, infact you have demonstrated that the simplist answer is that everything revolves around the earth. Given the Mass of each planet and the mass of the Sun, it is only logical to understand that the Gravitational pull of the sun is far greater than the earths and that the earth revolves around the sun.

Geocentrists don't reject gravity, try again.

[RichardT]

the sun is the center of the universe whether you want to accept it or not.

LOL.

[JacobHall86]

why exactly do you think thats funny?

[RichardT]

why exactly do you think thats funny?

I don't want to tell you, I'll let you get laughed at first.

[JacobHall86]

Is it becauseyou know that the Sun is the center of the Universe, because thats what everything revolves around and want to hold onto a fleeting idea that maybe just maybe the joke of a congregation you belong to is totally full of crap and when one card in the house you built is removed the whole thing falls?

[RichardT]

Is it becauseyou know that the Sun is the center of the Universe, because thats what everything revolves around and want to hold onto a fleeting idea that maybe just maybe the joke of a congregation you belong to is totally full of crap and when one card in the house you built is removed the whole thing falls?

ROFL

[JacobHall86]

have fun being totally wrong short bus.

[arunma]

I never said "science is of the day-vil"

And I never said I knew everything about science, I can still learn, but from what I know now, Geocentrism is very possible, taking redshift findings into consideration.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0807tj.asp


In case you feel singled out, rest assured that I am not referring solely to you.

Oh BTW, the creationist take on the redshift findings is bunk. "Less than one in a trillion" my foot. Someone just made up that number on the spot (as JacobHall accurately predicted would happen). Sorry, but the earth remains decidedly not the center of the universe. That the redshifts show earth to be the center of the universe is an obvious result of general relativity. If you took readings from Mars, they would show you that Mars is the center of the universe. Of course you would then have to then deal with Martian geocentric creationists, who would insist that Lord Ares created Mars to occupy a special place in the cosmos.

Geocentrists don't reject gravity, try again.

Whether or not you know it, if you believe in geocentrism (in any form, including so-called "geocentricity"), then you most certainly do reject gravity. Sorry Richard, but you just can't believe in geocentrism and gravity at the same time. Pick your poison...well, actually you should pick gravity, since only geocentrism is poison.

why exactly do you think thats funny?

He may be referring to a result of general relativity I mentioned several weeks ago: that technically every point in the universe is the center of the universe. But don't worry, because I have no intention of laughing at you. On a local scale, the Solar System is a gravitationally bound system. So unless you're considering a larger scale structure like the entire Milky Way Galaxy, it's approximately accurate to say that the Sun is the center of the universe.

[RichardT]

it's approximately accurate to say that the Sun is the center of the universe.

How does this work? I thought JacobHall was saying that the sun's gravitationnal pull was strong enough to pull the entire universe.

Btw, who else believes in Geocentricity other than me on all of CF?

I thought anything other than acentricity was considered pseudo science.

[RichardT]

In case you feel singled out, rest assured that I am not referring solely to you.

Oh BTW, the creationist take on the redshift findings is bunk. "Less than one in a trillion" my foot. Someone just made up that number on the spot (as JacobHall accurately predicted would happen). Sorry, but the earth remains decidedly not the center of the universe. That the redshifts show earth to be the center of the universe is an obvious result of general relativity. If you took readings from Mars, they would show you that Mars is the center of the universe. Of course you would then have to then deal with Martian geocentric creationists, who would insist that Lord Ares created Mars to occupy a special place in the cosmos.



Whether or not you know it, if you believe in geocentrism (in any form, including so-called "geocentricity"), then you most certainly do reject gravity. Sorry Richard, but you just can't believe in geocentrism and gravity at the same time. Pick your poison...well, actually you should pick gravity, since only geocentrism is poison.



He may be referring to a result of general relativity I mentioned several weeks ago: that technically every point in the universe is the center of the universe. But don't worry, because I have no intention of laughing at you. On a local scale, the Solar System is a gravitationally bound system. So unless you're considering a larger scale structure like the entire Milky Way Galaxy, it's approximately accurate to say that the Sun is the center of the universe.

Also, you are trying to tell me that in any frame of reference, all of the other galaxies out there will look like they are moving away from us? Even if we were to look from another galaxy's point of view?

Answersingenesis certainly does not reject general relativity, they aren't even geocentrist, they are galactocentrists (If that's what you want to call it).

[arunma]

How does this work? I thought JacobHall was saying that the sun's gravitationnal pull was strong enough to pull the entire universe.

It seemed fairly clear from Jacob's earlier posts that he was referring to the Solar System. Of course, maybe he really did think that the Sun is at the center of our galaxy. I take no issue with this, because I know that if I tell Jacob that modern science tells us that the Sun is nowhere near the center of the galaxy, he will listen to science instead of staunchly adhering to a tradition of man. The reason I take issue with geocentrist creation scientists is because they refuse to listen to genuine science, and add their own teachings to Scripture.

And you should also be upset with these people, because they've led you and your whole church congregation astray.

Btw, who else believes in Geocentricity other than me on all of CF?

BigChrisFilm and Chris777 seemed quite sympathetic to it. You'll have to ask them if they actually believe in it or not.

I thought anything other than acentricity was considered pseudo science.

I hate to say this, but the vast majority of the creation science out there (probably all of it) is pseudoscience. I say this as someone who believes in the infallibility of the Bible: creation "scientists" really need to work on their academic integrity. Who, according to the KJV, is the father of lies?

[RichardT]

Who, according to the KJV, is the father of lies?

Satan, why?

[arunma]

Also, you are trying to tell me that in any frame of reference, all of the other galaxies out there will look like they are moving away from us? Even if we were to look from another galaxy's point of view?

That is precisely correct. The guys who live in the Andromeda galaxy, and who are making cosmological observations, will see their own galaxy as the center of the universe. Who knows? Maybe they'll come to earth by Stargate and attack us infidels for teaching the New Age doctrine that "all reference frames are equally valid?"

Answersingenesis certainly does not reject general relativity, they aren't even geocentrist, they are galactocentrists (If that's what you want to call it).

Sorry, but that's wrong too. The Milky Way isn't the center of the universe.

You know, I've never understood why Christians, of all people, would claim that the earth is the center of the universe. How arrogant it is to think that man is the greatest of God's creations. If greatness is measured by obedience to God, then surely man is the worst. It would seem to me that God put us in the middle of nowhere to instill in man a degree of humility, and show us that we can only be at the center of his creation by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Geocentrism doesn't even work on a theological level, which is why it is utterly worthless.

[arunma]

Satan, why?

You've just identified the founder of the geocentrist movement. See why I encourage you so vehemently to discard this doctrine?

[RichardT]

You've just identified the founder of the geocentrist movement. See why I encourage you so vehemently to discard this doctrine?

Btw, why is it that you say in order for me to accept gravity, I must discard geocentricity?

[arunma]

Btw, why is it that you say in order for me to accept gravity, I must discard geocentricity?

Because if geocentrism in any form were true, then the theory of gravity would be patently false. Your so-called geocentricity, for example, supposes that there are imaginary forces acting on every single star in the universe to make them deceptively move in just the right directions for us to believe that the earth orbits the Sun. It also supposes that these same imaginary forces act on all the planets to make them look like Newtonian gravity is true.

Let me put it in terms you can relate to. Believing in geocentrism and gravity is like believing that both Jesus and Mohammad are prophets of God.

[RichardT]

Because if geocentrism in any form were true, then the theory of gravity would be patently false. Your so-called geocentricity, for example, supposes that there are imaginary forces acting on every single star in the universe to make them deceptively move in just the right directions for us to believe that the earth orbits the Sun. It also supposes that these same imaginary forces act on all the planets to make them look like Newtonian gravity is true.

Let me put it in terms you can relate to. Believing in geocentrism and gravity is like believing that both Jesus and Mohammad are prophets of God.

But geocentrists have answers to all of this. If I'm not mistaken Newton believed in the Ptolemy model.

[arunma]

But geocentrists have answers to all of this. If I'm not mistaken Newton believed in the Ptolemy model.

That's the problem: geocentrists have all the wrong answers. Their answers don't work, they are physically incorrect. Most of them are just blatent lies meant to keep their followers in line.

BTW you are mistaken; Newton did not believe in the Ptolemy model.

[RichardT]

That's the problem: geocentrists have all the wrong answers. Their answers don't work, they are physically incorrect. Most of them are just blatent lies meant to keep their followers in line.

BTW you are mistaken; Newton did not believe in the Ptolemy model.

" The unifying and predictive power of his laws was integral to the scientific revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution), the advancement of heliocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism), "

The scientific revolution hasn't accured yet, so this is why I ask.

[RichardT]

Btw, there's something you need to know arun, either way I win this "debate". If I can show that the earth is exclusively the center of the universe (which I haven't done), I win. But I don't have enough of an understanding of science just yet to be able to show this.

If I don't, then I will cling to the theory of general relativity and state that I believe the earth is in the center of the universe because any point in the universe can be used as the center.

"The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentricity#The_observations) of the mainstream. They point to the theory of general relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), which says that all physical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference). Since the current state of physics does not single out the geocentric frame of reference as special in any way, this group claims the geocentric frame is special for alternative religious reasons." - Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

If you feel that the statement made on the wikipedia page is wrong, then by all means edit it.

[arunma]

" The unifying and predictive power of his laws was integral to the scientific revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution), the advancement of heliocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism), "

The scientific revolution hasn't accured yet, so this is why I ask.

In Newton's written works, he used a heliocentric model. In fact he used his theory of Newtonian gravity to predict the proper orbits of the planets.

Btw, there's something you need to know arun, either way I win this "debate".

Sorry Richard, but science just doesn't work that way. Saying "I win" does nothing to justify your point.

If I can show that the earth is exclusively the center of the universe (which I haven't done), I win. But I don't have enough of an understanding of science just yet to be able to show this.

If I don't, then I will cling to the theory of general relativity and state that I believe the earth is in the center of the universe because any point in the universe can be used as the center.

No offense intended, but if you don't know what a metric tensor is, then you probably shouldn't be talking about general relativity. It's a difficult subject that some of the preeminent physicists in the world devote their lives to, and it's just a tad bit of hubris to claim a greater knowledge of the subject than them. It turns out that you can't arbitrarily pick the earth as the center of the universe. Since the Milky Way Galaxy is a gravitationally bound anisotropic system, the only point that can be defined as the center of the galaxy is the actual center of the galaxy.

Even if your above statement were true (and it isn't), then it would be like saying, "all religions are equally valid, so this proves that Christianity is true." This is the philosophical equivalent of moral relativism.

[JacobHall86]

People with this "Im better than you attitude" do 0 good for the gospel.

Kids like you (I use the word Kid not because of your age, but because of your lack of maturity) are the reason I wanted nothing to do with Christians in High school. Stop being a tool about everything, go outside westboro Baptist and learn about how the real world works.

[RichardT]

I guess I have to study this even more.

[RichardT]

People with this "Im better than you attitude" do 0 good for the gospel.

Kids like you (I use the word Kid not because of your age, but because of your lack of maturity) are the reason I wanted nothing to do with Christians in High school. Stop being a tool about everything, go outside westboro Baptist and learn about how the real world works.

We aren't supposed to be part of the world, plus it's funny how you bring up westboro baptist cult.

Also, if you were scientifically convinced that the earth was more than 6000-10000 years old, would you believe it?

[JacobHall86]

We aren't supposed to be part of the world, plus it's funny how you bring up westboro baptist cult.

Also, if you were scientifically convinced that the earth was more than 6000-10000 years old, would you believe it?

I never said anything about being a part of the world short bus, I only said we need to know how it works.

And YEC has nothing to do with Geocentricism.

[RichardT]

I never said anything about being a part of the world short bus, I only said we need to know how it works.

And YEC has nothing to do with Geocentricism.

Well quit being a tool believing in that anti scientific young earth creationism trash. Everyone knows the earth is 4.6 billion years old, here look we have overwhelming radioactive decay evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth/pb-iso.gif



Meteorite dating :

Allende:

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05

Guarena:

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06
13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

Shaw:

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06

Olivenza:

18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06

Saint Severin:

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04

Indarch:

9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08
12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04

Juvinas:

5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08
5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07

Moama:

3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03
4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05

Y-75011:

9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05
7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16
5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33

Angra dos Reis:

7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04
3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04

Mundrabrilla:

silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06
silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06
olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04
plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04

Weekeroo Station:

4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07
silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03



Of course I also believe in Young Earth Creationism, I have answers to all of this from RATE group experiments, I just wanted to see how you felt.

[JacobHall86]

Nice Red Herring arguement.

Short Bus if you could get your zeal and passion towards things that matter, you would be one of the coolest 17 year olds around. But you focus on stupid things that dont matter. Let the dumb stuff go, and worry about the important stuff.

Geocentrism, KJO, Landmarkism and Anti-RCC are not hills worth dying on.

[RichardT]

Nice Red Herring arguement.

Short Bus if you could get your zeal and passion towards things that matter, you would be one of the coolest 17 year olds around. But you focus on stupid things that dont matter. Let the dumb stuff go, and worry about the important stuff.

Geocentrism, KJO, Landmarkism and Anti-RCC are not hills worth dying on.

I was aware that this was a Red Herring argument, but I don't know enough about Geocentricity to get into details, so we have nothing else to talk about.

[RichardT]

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchil

I like this quote!

[BigChrisfilm]

People with this "Im better than you attitude" do 0 good for the gospel.

Kids like you (I use the word Kid not because of your age, but because of your lack of maturity) are the reason I wanted nothing to do with Christians in High school. Stop being a tool about everything, go outside westboro Baptist and learn about how the real world works.
This reply isn't doing to much to help your case out. Please, if you have nothing nice to say, or can't say something in a resonable mannor, just ignore it.

[BigChrisfilm]

I was aware that this was a Red Herring argument, but I don't know enough about Geocentricity to get into details, so we have nothing else to talk about.
Don't take any of his advice please.

[JacobHall86]

Don't take any of his advice please.

Ill take that as a compliment, seeing as you are a KJO, you cant use logic and reason.

[RichardT]

Ill take that as a compliment, seeing as you are a KJO, you cant use logic and reason.

I am asked whether I believe the words of the Bible to be inspired,—I answer, To be sure I do,—every one of them: and every syllable likewise. Do not you?—Where,—(if it be a fair question,)—Where do you, in your wisdom, stop? The book, you allow, is inspired. How about the chapters? How about the verses? Do you stop at the verses, and not go on to the words? ... No, Sirs! THE BIBLE (BE PERSUADED) IS THE VERY UTTERANCE OF THE ETERNAL;—AS MUCH GOD’S WORD, AS IF HIGH HEAVEN WERE OPEN, AND WE HEARD GOD SPEAKING TO US WITH HUMAN VOICE. Every book of it, is inspired alike; and is inspired entirely. ... THE BIBLE IS NONE OTHER THAN THE VOICE OF HIM THAT SITTETH UPON THE THRONE! EVERY BOOK OF IT,—EVERY CHAPTER OF IT,—EVERY VERSE OF IT,—EVERY WORD OF IT,—EVERY SYLLABLE OF IT,—(WHERE ARE WE TO STOP?)—EVERY LETTER OF IT—IS THE DIRECT UTTERANCE OF THE MOST HIGH! ... ‘Well spake the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of’ the many blessed Men who wrote it.—The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it, more, some part of it, less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne;—absolute,—faultless,—unerring,—supreme! (Sermon III, pp. 75,76,89). -Burgon

“That which distinguishes Sacred Science from every other Science which can be named is that it is Divine, and has to do with a Book which is inspired; that is, whose true Author is God. ... It is chiefly from inattention to this circumstance that misconception prevails in that department of Sacred Science known as ‘Textual Criticism’” (Burgon and Miller, The Traditional Text, p. 9) -Burgon

“We call these the opinions now fashionable; for those who watch the course of this art are aware that there is as truly a fashion in it, infecting its votaries, as in ladies’ bonnets, medicines or cravats [neck scarves]. ... The minds for which criticism retains its fascination are usually of that peculiar and ‘crotchety’ type found among antiquarians. The intelligent reader is, therefore, not surprised to find, along with much labor and learning, a ‘plentiful lack’ of sober and convincing common sense. ... We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice” (emphasis added) (Dabney, pp. 350,52,54). -Robert L. Dabney

[Shakespeare]

While I would agree that the "Son" is, in fact, the center of the Universe, the idea that the "sun" is the center of the Universe is frankly idiotic. There are, after all, a few advantages to living in a scientifically advanced era.

[RichardT]

Shakespeare


lies.

[Shakespeare]

How exactly is my screen name a "lie?"

And if you are referring to my post as being a lie, your rhetoric and skill at debate astonishes me.

[Gear853]

remember. santa doesn't like bad children.... neither does god =P

[RichardT]

remember. santa doesn't like bad children.... neither does god =P

That omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent satan santa.

[BigChrisfilm]

I will no longer be giving the link out, and I suggest that NO ONE ever go to that forum. Please ignore what I posted in tihe OP.

[RichardT]

I will no longer be giving the link out, and I suggest that NO ONE ever go to that forum. Please ignore what I posted in tihe OP.

Why's that? I've been posting comments in defence of people who were made fun of. Though I've only posted once in the general forum.

[BigChrisfilm]

Why's that? I've been posting comments in defence of people who were made fun of. Though I've only posted once in the general forum.
I found this site, that exposes the purpose for their site.

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/evo_hate.html

Don't go to that site unless you understand that they have posted many of things they say, but they are un-edited.

[RichardT]

I found this site, that exposes the purpose for their site.

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/evo_hate.html

Don't go to that site unless you understand that they have posted many of things they say, but they are un-edited.


Whoa, nice site.

[RichardT]

BigChrisFilm, that site you passed me is EXTREMEMELY RECENT. It quotes things from THIS MONTH. When did this guy write it?

[sister_maynard]

I love FSTDT.

Frankly, I'm a little hurt that they've never quoted me.
Just take it as a compliment. Generally the quotes are selected for percieved stupidity.

Besides, you've got to admit that some of the quotes they've got are pretty funny/dumb.

Oooooooooooh yes. There's one stating that atheists are "another sect of muslim:" I think it's well on its way to becoming the post of the year.

[RichardT]

Just take it as a compliment. Generally the quotes are selected for percieved stupidity.



Oooooooooooh yes. There's one stating that atheists are "another sect of muslim:" I think it's well on its way to becoming the post of the year.

I'm not going to laugh with these people anymore, I feel ashamed for doing it in the first place.

[BigChrisfilm]

BigChrisFilm, that site you passed me is EXTREMEMELY RECENT. It quotes things from THIS MONTH. When did this guy write it?
I am not sure, but I suppose it is very recent, as it talks a lot about Kent Hovind's case, and such. It is shocking, because you have to know that they are doing this, and believe this stuff, RIGHT NOW. It's still going on, untouched at this moment on that board.

[sister_maynard]

I'm not going to laugh with these people anymore, I feel ashamed for doing it in the first place.
Laughing at the posts or laughing at the people who are making fun of the posts?
Some are posted without justification and simply reflect faith or conservative beliefs, but some things are so idiotic and hateful that I have no compunctions about laughing at them.

That "evolutionary hate" site is interesting and does point out some of the more hateful nonsense that people post, but it mainly limps through by comparing atheists to Hitler over and over again. Have they never heard of Godwin's law?
I just finished reading it and really don't think it's so good: there are a few good points, but the overstretched comparisons to Hitler are annoying and often don't relate well to the topic. I don't appreciate cheap appeals to emotion.

[JacobHall86]

good job on totally reaffirming all his beliefs. You showed him Christians arent jerks at all.

[BigChrisfilm]

good job on totally reaffirming all his beliefs. You showed him Christians arent jerks at all.
What is your problem anyway? Do you always act like this?

[RichardT]

What is your problem anyway? Do you always act like this?

Yes.

[JacobHall86]

My problem is that people like you and richard do much more damage to the Gospel than good because you refuse to live what it teaches and have warped the Bible to fit your beliefs, not letting the Bible influence your belief, but taking what you want from it. Thats what my problem is.

[BigChrisfilm]

My problem is that people like you and richard do much more damage to the Gospel than good because you refuse to live what it teaches and have warped the Bible to fit your beliefs, not letting the Bible influence your belief, but taking what you want from it. Thats what my problem is.
So your problem is you don't agree with us, and you in turn judge our beleifs, and intentions, and decided to responed with rude comments?

[Traitor1]

What's up friend. Now, before you short stay in the Baptist forum ends, since we all know you are an atheist, I would like to point out some things to you. Evolution is racist. You only think you are better than me, and smarter than me, because I believe in a God, and you have proven my point to everyone here, that you think those that believe in God are not as far in evolution than Atheist are. Evolution believes in exterminating the infferior races, just like Adolf Hitler did, and it won't be long until you are all coming after us, trying to eliminate ous, since our intellect is inferior. Have fun with the Anit-Christ, because he is having a lot of fun with you.
Chris, it was your presupposition that said I was an atheist. If you ever cared to know, I'm actually not. But, why bother telling you this, you'll continue on with your presuppositions...

[JacobHall86]

In a nutshell, yes. Of course I am reminded of when Jesus said that you are to treat others as you wish to be treated, and when you start showing traitor some grace, you can tell me about judging.

[BigChrisfilm]

In a nutshell, yes. Of course I am reminded of when Jesus said that you are to treat others as you wish to be treated, and when you start showing traitor some grace, you can tell me about judging.
http://www.fstdt.com/forums/profile.asp?u=323

Here's a dedicated memeber of the FSTDT forum, and he is liar, saying he is a Christian!

[JacobHall86]

http://www.fstdt.com/forums/profile.asp?u=323

Here's a dedicated memeber of the FSTDT forum, and he is liar, saying he is a Christian!

Your buddy Richard is also a member. Just because someone is a member doesnt make them an athiest.

[BigChrisfilm]

Your buddy Richard is also a member. Just because someone is a member doesnt make them an athiest.
It is because of WHAT he post on that site that makes him an Athiest. Stop defending him, you are starting to make me think some things about you. What kind of Baptist wants to allow the Athiest to post in the Baptist forum? They have their own little place they are allowed to post, and don't need to be on here.

[Traitor1]

In a nutshell, yes. Of course I am reminded of when Jesus said that you are to treat others as you wish to be treated, and when you start showing traitor some grace, you can tell me about judging.
Thanks, friend for that bit of grace.

[RichardT]

My problem is that people like you and richard do much more damage to the Gospel than good because you refuse to live what it teaches and have warped the Bible to fit your beliefs, not letting the Bible influence your belief, but taking what you want from it. Thats what my problem is.

And how would you know this.

[JacobHall86]

It is because of WHAT he post on that site that makes him an Athiest. Stop defending him, you are starting to make me think some things about you. What kind of Baptist wants to allow the Athiest to post in the Baptist forum? They have their own little place they are allowed to post, and don't need to be on here.

What kind of Christian would write off a person because they are athiest?

[BigChrisfilm]

What kind of Christian would write off a person because they are athiest?
A Christian would do that. Because one day they will be going to hell, and he is going to write them off too.

[JacobHall86]

A Christian would do that. Because one day they will be going to hell, and he is going to write them off too.

What the hell is the matter with you.

[BigChrisfilm]

What the hell is the matter with you.
Why would you cuss? That doesn't seem like a Godly thing to do. Infact, I think you need to stop worrying about yourself. Athiest are going to hell, and if you think that isn't true, than you stand in direct contradiction of God's Word, and Jesus Christ himself.

[arunma]

Why would you cuss? That doesn't seem like a Godly thing to do. Infact, I think you need to stop worrying about yourself. Athiest are going to hell, and if you think that isn't true, than you stand in direct contradiction of God's Word, and Jesus Christ himself.

Actually Jacob seems to be well aware of the fact that atheists are going to hell. I'm guessing that's why he objects to writing them off.

[BigChrisfilm]

Actually Jacob seems to be well aware of the fact that atheists are going to hell. I'm guessing that's why he objects to writing them off.
If, that is what he is saying, I agree. BUT, he should see that I opened a thread that asked others to go over there, and help me out, and he never asked me for the link.

[JacobHall86]

If, that is what he is saying, I agree. BUT, he should see that I opened a thread that asked others to go over there, and help me out, and he never asked me for the link.

You went with the wrong intentions, and I knew the website.

Also, you seem to be more upset in the fact that I said the word Hell than the fact that people are dying and going there. Get off your soapbox.

[JPPT1974]

Focus on Jesus Jacob
And let Him take care of the
Rest for you my friend
Praying for you!

[Bleach4Blood]

Regarding the yecheadquarters site reccomended by BigChrisfilm...

(Quote)
I found this site, that exposes the purpose for their site.

[link to yecheadquarters site removed by me]

Don't go to that site unless you understand that they have posted many of things they say, but they are un-edited.
(End Quote)

I really don't think that site should be recommended to anyone. Not that the various FSTDT quotes and images are so bad in and of themselves (blasphemy aside), but rather the severely damaging image the YECH site's creator gives of Christians across the board.
An inability to comprehend both direct statements and sarcasm is only the beginning of his/her problems.
The blatant and obvious twisting of the facts he/she uses, and the fact that the quotes he/she selects are more convincing in many cases that his/her own comments upon them don't help much either.
The key failing of the site as a whole is the author’s repetitive tendency to use all the misquoting/out of context quoting/incomplete statements and twisted meaning techniques he/she accuses the FSTDT posters of.

His/her Hitler fascination is quite disturbing to boot, even though the vast majority of the comparisons put forward on the site don't stand up to a first glance, never mind careful consideration.

Really, that whole site is quite an embarrassment to Christians.

Examples follow.

1. 2nd page, picture 1. Clearly a "no Mormons please" logo, not Christian related at all.

2. 2nd page of the site, the "Klansmen" picture is a statement of tolerance, not the alleged anti-Semitic statement.

3. 3rd page, Image 1. Claims that atheists are trying to censor the bible, based on one humorous image with no element of censorship (though a strong element of blasphemy). Given the amount of fringe Christians around demanding that schools remove large lists of books from libraries... Well, this isn't going to be a strong arguing point for any Christian group. Note the extremely laboured link to Hitler’s "control the textbooks" quote, and consider in reference to the above fringe elements...

4. 3rd page, last image... This is somehow proof that evolution is satanic? Evolution may be. I don't much care. But nothing here proves or even suggests anything of the sort)

5. 4th page, opening. The author declares (out of nowhere) that evolutionists want to ban God. The somehow extrapolates from this to "Evolutionists want to kill all Christians". This level of paranoia benefits no-one.

6. 4th page. An un-attributed quote saying that science is the search for natural solutions. This is extrapolated to say Christians are banned from science. Not sure how he makes that one work, even if that were a genuine definition of science.

7. 4th Page, "Stop using Jesus as an excuse" image and interpretation. This is actually a perfectly valid statement, crudely and questionably phrased. There is a problem with various groups using our Lord as a blanket justification for their own hatreds. The interpretation on this site however somehow reads it as claiming all Christians share these hatreds. The word "conform" is used in the sites interpretation, and then used to string together another non-existent link to Hitler.

8. 5th page in total... Blasphemous images abound. However the reading into these that these "evolutionists" want homeland security to fail... The author here displays a complete lack of logic and an inability to reason. (He/She is also unaware of the difference between porn and obscenity).

9. 6th page, opening images. The mockery here is of Young Earth Creationists, not God. (Was the earth created 6000 years ago or 60 Billion years ago? Why would we really care? Those touched by the spirit will have faith, those not, can't. No-one is saved by semantic and/or scientific arguments).

10. 6th page, the table of quotes. Every single quote is out of context. Most are clearly sarcastic in nature. The author either didn't read or couldn't comprehend the arguments being made. While none of this justifies the statements made in these quotes it does leave the author very, very far out on a limb when he/she makes similar points about FSTDT.

11. 6th page, last image. A nasty, nasty image, but the authors claim that this is an admission that the FSTDT crowd get inspiration from Nazis is pure gibberish.

12. 7th page, first part. Blatant twisting of the statements, and deliberate miss-understanding expressed in the blue commentary weaken the site still further.

13. 7th page second part. Obviously biased and loaded questions. No actual desire to ask about the site, and several blatant lies disguised as questions. Very much along the lines of "So, brother, do you still beat your wife?".

14. 8th page, opening. Clear and chronic failure to comprehend written English in the opening paragraph (no claim that Christians are virii is made) and the concept of humour in the Doonesbury (which cannot be attributed to FSTDT anyway).

15. 8th Page, closing paragraph. Irrational claim that inventions of scientists who are Christians should be denied to/refused by "evolutionists"... No rational explanation for this one at all...

16. 9th page. Somehow it is determined that referring to a webpage (FSTDT) for material for a trashy radio show indicates the medias support and fervent belief that the page in question is inviolate truth... No. I don't get it either.

17. 9th page, closing paragraph. Apparently radio is now an abomination because Hitler used to use it, and anyone using radio is just like Hitler.

Whoa... rather longer than expected. Sorry for the large blodge of text.

[SIGMARHO]

I may be an exercise in futility to go to the atheist webstites. It will only look like we're going to debate.

[ikester7579]

Regarding the yecheadquarters site reccomended by BigChrisfilm...

(Quote)
I found this site, that exposes the purpose for their site.

[link to yecheadquarters site removed by me]

Don't go to that site unless you understand that they have posted many of things they say, but they are un-edited.
(End Quote)

I really don't think that site should be recommended to anyone. Not that the various FSTDT quotes and images are so bad in and of themselves (blasphemy aside), but rather the severely damaging image the YECH site's creator gives of Christians across the board.
An inability to comprehend both direct statements and sarcasm is only the beginning of his/her problems.
The blatant and obvious twisting of the facts he/she uses, and the fact that the quotes he/she selects are more convincing in many cases that his/her own comments upon them don't help much either.
The key failing of the site as a whole is the author’s repetitive tendency to use all the misquoting/out of context quoting/incomplete statements and twisted meaning techniques he/she accuses the FSTDT posters of.

His/her Hitler fascination is quite disturbing to boot, even though the vast majority of the comparisons put forward on the site don't stand up to a first glance, never mind careful consideration.

Really, that whole site is quite an embarrassment to Christians.

Examples follow.

1. 2nd page, picture 1. Clearly a "no Mormons please" logo, not Christian related at all.

2. 2nd page of the site, the "Klansmen" picture is a statement of tolerance, not the alleged anti-Semitic statement.

3. 3rd page, Image 1. Claims that atheists are trying to censor the bible, based on one humorous image with no element of censorship (though a strong element of blasphemy). Given the amount of fringe Christians around demanding that schools remove large lists of books from libraries... Well, this isn't going to be a strong arguing point for any Christian group. Note the extremely laboured link to Hitler’s "control the textbooks" quote, and consider in reference to the above fringe elements...

4. 3rd page, last image... This is somehow proof that evolution is satanic? Evolution may be. I don't much care. But nothing here proves or even suggests anything of the sort)

5. 4th page, opening. The author declares (out of nowhere) that evolutionists want to ban God. The somehow extrapolates from this to "Evolutionists want to kill all Christians". This level of paranoia benefits no-one.

6. 4th page. An un-attributed quote saying that science is the search for natural solutions. This is extrapolated to say Christians are banned from science. Not sure how he makes that one work, even if that were a genuine definition of science.

7. 4th Page, "Stop using Jesus as an excuse" image and interpretation. This is actually a perfectly valid statement, crudely and questionably phrased. There is a problem with various groups using our Lord as a blanket justification for their own hatreds. The interpretation on this site however somehow reads it as claiming all Christians share these hatreds. The word "conform" is used in the sites interpretation, and then used to string together another non-existent link to Hitler.

8. 5th page in total... Blasphemous images abound. However the reading into these that these "evolutionists" want homeland security to fail... The author here displays a complete lack of logic and an inability to reason. (He/She is also unaware of the difference between porn and obscenity).

9. 6th page, opening images. The mockery here is of Young Earth Creationists, not God. (Was the earth created 6000 years ago or 60 Billion years ago? Why would we really care? Those touched by the spirit will have faith, those not, can't. No-one is saved by semantic and/or scientific arguments).

10. 6th page, the table of quotes. Every single quote is out of context. Most are clearly sarcastic in nature. The author either didn't read or couldn't comprehend the arguments being made. While none of this justifies the statements made in these quotes it does leave the author very, very far out on a limb when he/she makes similar points about FSTDT.

11. 6th page, last image. A nasty, nasty image, but the authors claim that this is an admission that the FSTDT crowd get inspiration from Nazis is pure gibberish.

12. 7th page, first part. Blatant twisting of the statements, and deliberate miss-understanding expressed in the blue commentary weaken the site still further.

13. 7th page second part. Obviously biased and loaded questions. No actual desire to ask about the site, and several blatant lies disguised as questions. Very much along the lines of "So, brother, do you still beat your wife?".

14. 8th page, opening. Clear and chronic failure to comprehend written English in the opening paragraph (no claim that Christians are virii is made) and the concept of humour in the Doonesbury (which cannot be attributed to FSTDT anyway).

15. 8th Page, closing paragraph. Irrational claim that inventions of scientists who are Christians should be denied to/refused by "evolutionists"... No rational explanation for this one at all...

16. 9th page. Somehow it is determined that referring to a webpage (FSTDT) for material for a trashy radio show indicates the medias support and fervent belief that the page in question is inviolate truth... No. I don't get it either.

17. 9th page, closing paragraph. Apparently radio is now an abomination because Hitler used to use it, and anyone using radio is just like Hitler.

Whoa... rather longer than expected. Sorry for the large blodge of text.

That's is because you are defending FSTDT. First post too. Glad you love my site. The one you made such a long post about. Did not know you cared so much that you would take so much time and effort :D .

Also, if so many don't like the FSTDT site, all you have to do is find out who the host is. Go to that website and look at there service agreement (rules) with their customers. And what kind of rules they have for content, and promotion of attitudes. And you will find that FSTDT breaks about 3 of them. So file your complaints.

A who is (http://www.whois.net/) search should give the host to that site.

[Bleach4Blood]

No, Ikester, really, I don't like your site. Please take the time to read my message and look at what you have claimed and written. As you have done here, you ignore the reality of the situation and say whatever springs to your mind. This is the sort of thing which harms Christians and Christianity.

Why not do it right, and criticize them on genuine issues? If you must quote them and answer them quote and answer what they actually say. Not what you want them to say. I took the time to "proofread" your site and gave a detailed listing of the problems and weaknesses within it. The least you could do, from common courtessy, not to mention honesty, is actually read it yourself and honestly answer as to your sites core integrity and honesty.

[RealityCheck]

Also, you are trying to tell me that in any frame of reference, all of the other galaxies out there will look like they are moving away from us? Even if we were to look from another galaxy's point of view?



Yes.

If you want to see how this works, there is a 2-dimensional analog to this.

Take an uninflated ballon, and put some little stickers on it. Make them small stickers, as you'll want to put several on it. Distribute them all around the balloon. These stickers are the "galaxies" on the 2-dimensional "universe" defined by the surface of the balloon.

Now, begin inflating the balloon and notice that the space in between all of the stickers is increasing. Imagine now that you are a 2-dimensional inhabitant of one of the sticker "galaxies", and you're looking out at all the other sticker galaxies. What would you observe? That all the other stickers are moving away from you.

Turn the balloon around, and now pretend you live in a different galaxy, and ask yourself the same question. Are all the stickers moving away from you? Yes. Choose any sticker anywhere on the balloon - and you'll come to the same conclusion.

Keep inflating the balloon and see how the stickers keep separating farther and farther apart. And note that no matter which sticker you pretend to be living in, you always make the same observation - all the other stickers look like they're moving away from you.

Now, it should be pretty obvious that the motion of the stickers away from one another is a result of the space in between stickers expanding - that is, you're literally adding space between each of the sticker galaxies.

Now, ask yourself this question - where is the center of this expansion? If you're the inhabitant of one of the 2-D sticker galaxies, you might incorrectly come to the conclusion, "I'm at the center, because everything radiates away from me." But you'll notice that's clearly wrong - because you could have said the same from any other sticker galaxy, not just one in particular.

The actual center of expansion is not anywhere on the surface of the balloon - the center, you can probably already guess, is actually in the center of the balloon, somewhere in the interior where all your air is. But, that is a third dimension - the surface of the balloon comprises only 2 dimensions, but the interior plus the surface comprise 3 dimensions.

Thus - this is a two dimensional universe expanding in three dimensions.

How is this analogous? Although it is nearly impossible for our minds to actually envision this physically, we live in a three dimensional universe expanding in four dimensions.

This "fourth dimension" is not the "time" dimension as envisioned by Einstein, but a fourth spatial dimension that we, as 3 dimensional creatures, are incapable of observing physically.

And that's how our own universe expands. Space, literally, is increasing between galaxies. It is also expanding between stars, between planets, between individual atoms, etc.

However, the rate of this expansion on less than a galactic scale is so small as to be nearly insignificant on that scale. Even between nearby galaxies it is fairly small, and the individual motions of galaxies (by gravitational attraction) may be greater than the spatial expansion. For example, the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest full-size galaxy neighbor, is actually observed as moving toward our galaxy. The space between these two galaxies is small enough, and the relative motion of the galaxies toward each other great enough, that we observe this.

[arunma]

RealityCheck, clearly you are well versed in physics!

Alas, I provided Richard with the balloon analogy a few weeks ago, and he doesn't believe it for some reason.

[RealityCheck]

RealityCheck, clearly you are well versed in physics!

Alas, I provided Richard with the balloon analogy a few weeks ago, and he doesn't believe it for some reason.


He doesn't believe the analogy is valid, or he doesn't believe the balloon will actually behave exactly as stated?

[arunma]

He doesn't believe the analogy is valid, or he doesn't believe the balloon will actually behave exactly as stated?

Given that every point in the universe can be called the center of the universe, he doesn't recognize the meaninglessness of selecting the earth's reference frame as special. Richard is a geocentrist (in case you didn't notice already). He implicitly denies the Newtonian theory of gravity, yet believes that general relativity somehow validates his geocentric beliefs. I don't think he knows that general relativity also predicts the proper orbit of the earth around the Sun.

I told him earlier that if he believes that the earth is the center of the universe, then it is impossible for him to believe in gravity. He doesn't believe me, maybe you can convince him though.

[RealityCheck]

I doubt it. He's 17, and if I recall that age, it's defined by the belief "I know everything, everyone else knows nothing unless they agree with me."

He'll grow out of that in the next 5-6 years. (Trust me richard, you will... just about everyone does.)

[spiersdodgerblue]

Why fret, It's called free choice, God given free choice. I say let them have there den. With all that they read it's not like seeeds are not being planted, whether roots take or not, this is in their court now. Those who are in the faith just keep on being faithful here on the boards and let them take what they want and leave the breaking down of the hardening of the hearts to God.

And of course always be praying for the unsaved!

[RichardT]

And that's how our own universe expands. Space, literally, is increasing between galaxies. It is also expanding between stars, between planets, between individual atoms, etc.

Please source evidence of this.

[RichardT]

. He implicitly denies the Newtonian theory of gravityIn the book "Geocentricity" by Gerardus D. Bouw, Bouw explains that it wasn't Newton's plan to invalidate any place in the universe as special, or something like that, it's been a long time since I've read it, I'd have to quote it to you.

"Common Misconceptions
It is generally believed, without evidence, that in the geocentric model the sun, moon, planets, and distant stars all orbit the earth once per day. There is no orbiting involved. What is happening is that the firmament is rotating. Now the nature of the firmament is such that it defines all the physics of the universe, both the local and the universal, protophysics (Chapter 11, page 116). This means that all the “laws” of physics are part and parcel of the firmament and that the firmament acts like a medium for the laws of science. So it is that in a geocentric model the sun, moon, and stars do not gravitationally orbit the earth daily any more than that a molecule in a top gravitationally orbits the center of the top. In the case of the spinning top it is the fibers and material of the top which carry the molecules around the axis of the top. By the same token, in the geocentric model it is the fabric of the firmament which carries the universe about it. A second common misconception is related to the first and that is that the geocentric universe requires that the sun orbit the earth once per year. Again, this is not the case. In a geocentric universe Newton’s (or Einstein’s) laws must be fulfilled just as in a heliocen-tric universe. Newton’s law of gravity states that from the sun’s perspective, the earth must be seen to revolve about it once per year. It matters not to the sun whether the earth actually does so or appears to do so; remember that we are talking about relative motion, not absolute. If the firmament were to possess a wobble (about which we will say later) which carries the sun, planets, and stars about the earth once a year in such a way that the earth seems to describe an orbit around the sun, then the sun and the universe are content that the law of gravity is being satisfied. Remember,the physics of the universe which specify the law of gravity is fastened to the firmament, not the earth or sun. A third misconception is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded.This argument means that if the stars and planets are further away than Saturn, they would be moving faster than the speed of light in their daily motion about the earth. There are two problems with this statement. First, the daily motion is one of rotation, and relativity (which dictates that the speed of light is a speed limit) is said not to apply to rotation. This is claimed because relativity cannot account for the Sagnac effect, an effect which violates relativity’s postulate that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. More practically, though, relativists maintain that in a spinning universe the gravitational field increases as one goes further and further from the axis of rotation. Relativity allows that it is the gravitational field which dictates the speed of light in any part of the universe. Thus the further one goes from earth, the faster the speed of light in a rotating universe. But the true resolution is this: the laws of physics, including any laws about a speed limit, are defined relative to the firmament. It is not the case that the universe is rotating once per day inside the firmament. On the contrary, the firmament does the rotating and the bodies of the universe seldom go much faster relative to the firmament than a few hundreds to a few thousands of miles per second, far, far below the speed of light. Hence, if the speed of light (3x10 10 cm/sec or 186,272 miles per second) is a speed limit in the universe, it is so only relative to the firmament. Because of its tremendous mass and density compared to the material universe, it is a small thing for the firmament to rotate once a day. For rotation, there is no problem with violating the speed of light, even at the most remote edge of the universe. The last misconception we shall look at now is the one which claims that the laws of physics should be different in a geocentric universe than in a heliocentric universe. Time and time again this has been shown to be false. What this misconception claims is that phenomena such as the Foucault pendulum, the stationary satellite, the flight of ballistic missiles, indeed, the very equations on which the space program is based must be different in a geocentric universe. This is the very misconception which Ernst Mach tried to counter in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To understand this, think of it this way. Imagine a non-rotating coordinate system fastened to the center of a spinning globe in the middle of a room. Imagine that somewhere in the room there is a basketball player standing, dribbling a ball. Initially, even though the globe is spinning, the coordinate system is not spinning and we describe the motion of the ball mathematically in terms of the coordinate system attached to the globe. Now imagine that the coordinate system starts spinning with the globe. It should be intuitively obvious that the behavior of the basketball and player is not affected by whether or not the coordinate system is spinning. In other words, just because some imaginary coordinate system is spinning, one cannot claim that the ball should bounce back up, away from the player’s hand. This is the case claimed by Mach and the geocentrists. Geometry is an imaginary concept and cannot be allowed to dictate the physics as a function of the coordinate system. Yet there are those who insist that a geocentric universe must give a different physics. Unwittingly they argue that the behavior of the basketball is different in a spinning coordinate system than in a non-spinning one. Those subject to this misconception have assumed that the coordinate system, the geometry, is the ultimate reality instead of a language used to describe reality. This is the ultimate reality of Plato, but is wrong and borders on idolatry."

-Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw

[RealityCheck]

Please source evidence of this.


Link to basic article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_expansion

Some specifics:

Observational evidence
It was not until the year 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000) that scientists finally had all the pieces of direct observational evidence necessary to confirm the metric expansion of the universe. However, before this evidence was discovered, theoretical cosmologists considered the metric expansion of space to be a likely feature of the universe based on what they considered to be a small number of reasonable assumptions in modeling the universe. Chief among these were:

the Cosmological Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle) which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropic)) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Homogeneous)).
the Copernican Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_Principle) which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point").To varying degrees, observational cosmologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_cosmology) have discovered evidence supporting these assumptions in addition to direct observations of space expanding. Today, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, the properties of the universe which scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist) have tested and which can be observed provide compelling confirmation. Sources of confirmation include:


Edwin Hubble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble) demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us ("Hubble's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law)") as predicted by a universal expansion.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_expansion#_note-1) Using the redshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift) of their electromagnetic spectra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum) to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropic) and homogenous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Homogenous), that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos) taken from redshift surveys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_survey) a so-called "End of Greatness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Greatness)" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_cluster) and superclusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercluster) and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales in much the same way a Jackson Pollock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock) painting looks lumpy close-up, but more regular as a whole.
the isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst) and supernovae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova) is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle.
The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems. As reported by a group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Southern_Observatory), the radiation that pervades the universe is demonstrably warmer at earlier times.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_expansion#_note-2) Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion.Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way) sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_Model)).
Additionally, scientists are confident that the theories which rely on the metric expansion of space are correct because they have passed the rigorous standards of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). In particular, when physics calculations are performed based upon the current theories (including metric expansion), they appear to give results and predictions which, in general, agree extremely closely with both astrophysical and particle physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics) observations. The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law) was until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical assumption that is now tested to the observational limits of time and space. This evidence is taken very seriously because the level of detail and the sheer quantity of measurements which the theories predict can be shown to precisely and accurately match visible reality. The level of precision is difficult to quantify, but is on the order of the precision seen in the physical constants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant) that govern the physics of the universe.

[RealityCheck]

richardT - Regarding geocentrism and Bouw's work:


If general relativity is true, then there is no way to prove that the Earth is not the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle)). An idea that is not falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) may be true, but it is not a scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory).

However, while many parts of General Relativity have been shown empirically to accurately predict certain phenomenon, such as "gravitational lensing of light", the theory has also been shown to have some major holes in it - most notably, its predictions conflict with the predictions of quantum mechanics, and QM theory has shown to be a better model, again through empirical evidence. The most damaging prediction of general relativity is the prediction of "singularities", which are not possible in quantum mechanics. Much of the current work in these fields is centered on reconciling the two theories, and no satisfactory solution, as yet, has been reached. M-theory is the most promising of the newest theories that resolve these difficulties.

But back to what the above quote says. Science can only deal with ideas that can be falsified - that is, we can devise a real experiment that produces results that either support the theory or discredit the theory. If something is not falsifiable, then it is not science.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that "not falsifiable" is the same as "not false." It merely means that the truth or falsehood of a statement, idea, or whatnot cannot be verified by any known means. Intelligent Design, for example, has the same problem. It posits that an Intelligent Designer must exist - however, the existence of such a designer cannot be verified or disproven. Nor has any experiment been devised that would show or deny the existence of such a designer. Therefore, I.D. does not qualify as "science."

[sister_maynard]

That's is because you are defending FSTDT. First post too. Glad you love my site. The one you made such a long post about. Did not know you cared so much that you would take so much time and effort :D .

Also, if so many don't like the FSTDT site, all you have to do is find out who the host is. Go to that website and look at there service agreement (rules) with their customers. And what kind of rules they have for content, and promotion of attitudes. And you will find that FSTDT breaks about 3 of them. So file your complaints.

A who is (http://www.whois.net/) search should give the host to that site.
If you're going to hint at things then go ahead and put the information up, carefully explaining exactly what you're trying to say. Your site is well-intentioned, but it's riddled with logical fallacies. Someone gave you a nice explanation of how you could strengthen your position; blow it off if you like, but clinging to weak arguments is just silly.

[arunma]

In the book "Geocentricity" by Gerardus D. Bouw, Bouw explains that it wasn't Newton's plan to invalidate any place in the universe as special, or something like that, it's been a long time since I've read it, I'd have to quote it to you.

With the utmost respect to Dr. Bouw: if he told me that the sky was blue, I still wouldn't take his word for it. And neither should you.

Regarding your scientific inquiries, I think RealityCheck has already provided the pertinent information. It's quite helpful to have another student of physics around.

[RichardT]

I doubt it. He's 17, and if I recall that age, it's defined by the belief "I know everything, everyone else knows nothing unless they agree with me."

He'll grow out of that in the next 5-6 years. (Trust me richard, you will... just about everyone does.)

Please do not get my age into this, this is a form of ad-hominem.

[RealityCheck]

Please do not get my age into this, this is a form of ad-hominem.


I was not attacking your position or you with reference to your age. I was specifically telling arunma that I doubted I could "make sense to you" because of your age. And as far as I'm concerned, that's true. My experience with young people from 16 to 21 is that they generally are going through a stage of believing firmly that they "have all the answers" and everyone else is foolish. And as well, in my experience, nearly every such person grows out of it.

There are exceptions, but thankfully, not many.

[RichardT]

If general relativity is true, then there is no way to prove that the Earth is not the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle)). An idea that is not falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) may be true, but it is not a scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory).I understand. So why ridicule me for taking God's word at face value? I told you before that I don't know everything about science and that I'm still learning, why don't you take my word for it? I can't get into details about the Geocentricity issue yet. I could get into a certain amount of details about YEC though.

[RichardT]

I was not attacking your position or you with reference to your age. I was specifically telling arunma that I doubted I could "make sense to you" because of your age. And as far as I'm concerned, that's true. My experience with young people from 16 to 21 is that they generally are going through a stage of believing firmly that they "have all the answers" and everyone else is foolish. And as well, in my experience, nearly every such person grows out of it.

There are exceptions, but thankfully, not many.I never questionned your intelligence, you make perfect sense to me, and I never said I had all the answers. There are so many things that I don't know and I still take this as ad-hominem as it has nothing to do with the discussion and it questions my honesty.

[RichardT]

That's is because you are defending FSTDT. First post too. Glad you love my site. The one you made such a long post about. Did not know you cared so much that you would take so much time and effort :D .

Also, if so many don't like the FSTDT site, all you have to do is find out who the host is. Go to that website and look at there service agreement (rules) with their customers. And what kind of rules they have for content, and promotion of attitudes. And you will find that FSTDT breaks about 3 of them. So file your complaints.

A who is (http://www.whois.net/) search should give the host to that site.Dude, keep up the good work! I can't believe you actually posted on CF, but since you did, can I possibly get my name on your site somehow? Thanks brother :)

(eh, you don't have to, I'm just saying)

[RealityCheck]

I understand. So why ridicule me for taking God's word at face value? I told you before that I don't know everything about science and that I'm still learning, why don't you take my word for it? I can't get into details about the Geocentricity issue yet. I could get into a certain amount of details about YEC though.


I'll let Arunma handle that one. Me, I don't equate the Bible as "the infallible perfect Word of God." He does, but also does not believe that we can reject the real, physical, observable universe just because reality conflicts with the Bible.

I can certainly take your word for it that you "don't know everything yet" and you have lots to learn.

[BigChrisfilm]

I'll let Arunma handle that one. Me, I don't equate the Bible as "the infallible perfect Word of God." He does, but also does not believe that we can reject the real, physical, observable universe just because reality conflicts with the Bible.

I can certainly take your word for it that you "don't know everything yet" and you have lots to learn.
He doesn't need to "learn" that the Bible isn't the infallible Word of God. That's a shame that you believe that, but don't be encouraging Bible believers to believe your views.

[RichardT]

Me, I don't equate the Bible as "the infallible perfect Word of God."To me this is absolute blasphemy and I could never hold such a liberal/modernist position.

He does, but also does not believe that we can reject the real, physical, observable universe just because reality conflicts with the Bible.

It is impossible for scripture to conflict with reality if we take the infallible perfect Word of God as an axiom.

[BigChrisfilm]

To me this is absolute blasphemy and I could never hold such a liberal/modernist position.



It is impossible for scripture to conflict with reality if we take the infallible perfect Word of God as an axiom.
I don't see how they can trust that Jesus was the Son of God, and that Jesus died for us to take away our sins, if they don't believe the Bible is infallible. It's called, let's pick and choose what we want to believe, and do worry about the stuff that we don't.

[JacobHall86]

I don't see how they can trust that Jesus was the Son of God, and that Jesus died for us to take away our sins, if they don't believe the Bible is infallible. It's called, let's pick and choose what we want to believe, and do worry about the stuff that we don't.

While I agree its infallabile, I also think you are totally wrong because you are adding to the Gospel, stating you cant be saved and not beleive the Bible to be infallable.

[BigChrisfilm]

While I agree its infallabile, I also think you are totally wrong because you are adding to the Gospel, stating you cant be saved and not beleive the Bible to be infallable.
How can you believe anything in the Bible if you don't believe the whole thing?

[JacobHall86]

By belieiving only that part.

Jesus never commanded us to believe the Bible to be 100% true.

[RealityCheck]

To me this is absolute blasphemy and I could never hold such a liberal/modernist position.



You're welcome to such a belief, but not even the Bible supports that idea.

It is impossible for scripture to conflict with reality if we take the infallible perfect Word of God as an axiom.

Key word highlighted.

[RealityCheck]

How can you believe anything in the Bible if you don't believe the whole thing?

Show me where it is written, "Either the entire Bible is true, or the entire Bible is false."

[BigChrisfilm]

By belieiving only that part.

Jesus never commanded us to believe the Bible to be 100% true.
So how do you know that part is true?

[BigChrisfilm]

Show me where it is written, "Either the entire Bible is true, or the entire Bible is false."
Show me in the Bible where it says Methodist are right, and I am wrong.

[RealityCheck]

While I agree its infallabile, I also think you are totally wrong because you are adding to the Gospel, stating you cant be saved and not beleive the Bible to be infallable.


The Gospels and the letters of the New Testament only say that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation. They say nothing about belief in the Bible. If anything, holding the Bible up to that same standard is idolatry.

[BigChrisfilm]

The Gospels and the letters of the New Testament only say that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation. They say nothing about belief in the Bible. If anything, holding the Bible up to that same standard is idolatry.
How do you know the Gospels are true?

[RealityCheck]

How do you know the Gospels are true?

I don't.

[JacobHall86]

Show me in the Bible where it says Methodist are right, and I am wrong.

Show me where it says to be a richard.

[RichardT]

I don't.

get yourself out of the christianforums then. I personnally would not like to see people like you in our forums. Maybe we can continue this discussion in the creation/evolution section.

[RealityCheck]

get thee out of the christianforums then. I personnally would not like to see people like you in out forums.


Oh yay, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I challenge you, Richard, to show where in the Nicene Creed or anywhere in the CF rules, that it states that belief in the scriptures as infallible is required to be on these forums or to consider yourself a Christian.

[RealityCheck]

Show me in the Bible where it says Methodist are right, and I am wrong.


I asked you a question first.

[RichardT]

Oh yay, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I challenge you, Richard, to show where in the Nicene Creed or anywhere in the CF rules, that it states that belief in the scriptures as infallible is required to be on these forums or to consider yourself a Christian.

Fine, it's not your fault then, it's this awefully ecumenical and damned forum's fault.

[JacobHall86]

Richard, stop being such a riched about it. Leave CF if you are going to complain about everything. Take your totally wrong views somewhere else.

[BigChrisfilm]

I don't.
Well, that's just not good at all, is it?

[BigChrisfilm]

Show me where it says to be a richard.
you have lost the purpose of my post.

[BigChrisfilm]

Richard, if all the Christians leave Christianforums, it will give everyone that comes here a false knowledge of Christianity. Therefor, we need people like you, so don't leave.

[RealityCheck]

Fine, it's not your fault then, it's this awefully ecumenical and damned forum's fault.


Yes, different viewpoints on religion are such a terrible awful thing.

[BigChrisfilm]

Yes, different viewpoints on religion are such a terrible awful thing.
Hey, either you believe Jesus saved you, or your going to hell. That's about all there is to it. BTW, you are not allowed to debate Batpist on the Baptist forum.

[RichardT]

Richard, stop being such a riched about it. Leave CF if you are going to complain about everything. Take your totally wrong views somewhere else.

As much as I hate CF, I love the people in it.

[RichardT]

Yes, different viewpoints on religion are such a terrible awful thing.I'm honestly not trying to be rude but if you aren't sure about the gospel account, then I wouldn't know what to think of you. (I'm sorry, I accidently posted something that questionned your salvation, please forgive me, I should never do that with persons.)

[JacobHall86]

I'm honestly not trying to be rude but if you aren't sure about the gospel account, then to me you aren't saved.

Im glad its not up to you.

[RealityCheck]

Hey, either you believe Jesus saved you, or your going to hell. That's about all there is to it. BTW, you are not allowed to debate Batpist on the Baptist forum.


You're not a Baptist.

[BigChrisfilm]

I'm honestly not trying to be rude but if you aren't sure about the gospel account, then to me you aren't saved.
How can you believe the Gospel, if you don't even know if it is true?

[BigChrisfilm]

You're not a Baptist.
I have had this discussion with the mods, and although I don't attend a Baptist church, my ideas are Baptist. You are a Methodist, and are NOT allowed to debate on here.

[RealityCheck]

I'm honestly not trying to be rude but if you aren't sure about the gospel account, then to me you aren't saved.


Well, since scriptures say to "believe in Christ" rather than "believe in Richard" I'm not terribly worried about it.

[BigChrisfilm]

Well, since scriptures say to "believe in Christ" rather than "believe in Richard" I'm not terribly worried about it.
So why do you believe that Jesus is God? Because someone told you, or because the Bible said so?

[JacobHall86]

I have had this discussion with the mods, and although I don't attend a Baptist church, my ideas are Baptist. You are a Methodist, and are NOT allowed to debate on here.

Her ideas are Liberal Baptist. She can post here.

Unless you play by the rules, you cant tell her to. BTW, there is no set "Baptist Beliefs" thats what makes the Baptist CHurches unique.

[RichardT]

Im glad its not up to you.

Well I'm glad nothing is up to you either, and I am free to rebute you at any time without using derogative terms or without adhering to the ad-hominem fallacy.

[BigChrisfilm]

Well, since scriptures say to "believe in Christ" rather than "believe in Richard" I'm not terribly worried about it.
How do you know that scripture really wants you to believe in Jesus, since it isn't infallible? How do you know which parts are true, and which parts aren't?